Matthew Y. Schaefer

English

立教大学学術リポジトリ

 149  Attempting to Increase Function Phrase Use in Communicatively Competent Students Matthew Y. Schaefer  ABSTRACT The use of Functions is a key component of the EDC course, both as a tool to organize Discussions and as a way to generate content for the students. In this paper, I will reflect on my observation of two students who, in the first several weeks of the term, contributed very well to all lesson activities, but did not use the target Functions sufficiently. In Lessons 6, 7, 10, and 11 (i.e. lessons that introduced new Functions), I tried different types of Preparation activities for Discussion 1 to see if they had any effect on the observed students’ use of Functions.  INTRODUCTION The stated objectives of the EDC course include students being able to use a variety of interactional functions during extended (16-minute) discussions (Hurling, 2012, pp. 1-3 & 1-4). Most of these target functions are presented explicitly by instructors, in activities which include focused practice, and students are made aware that they are assessed on their ability to use them appropriately. As part of the presentations of the functions, students are encouraged to consider both how to use them (i.e. specific target phrases and appropriate contexts) and why they are beneficial for the discussions. The ‘why’ is often explained as encouraging negotiation of meaning (e.g. Paraphrasing), generating content (e.g. Reporting Information), or going deeper into the topic (e.g. Different Viewpoints) (Doe, Hurling, Livingston, Moroi, & Takayama, 2013). However, although the course puts a relative emphasis on the acquisition of these functions, I noticed that many of my higher-level students1 were not using them as often as they were expected to. This was despite the fact that they were still contributing a lot of content to the discussions and exhibiting a strong willingness to communicate, often more so than lower-level students who were using the functions at a higher frequency. Discussions with colleagues led me to believe that this was a common teacher observation in EDC lessons.  I decided, therefore, that this would be a good subject for my Teaching Journal semester project and chose two students to observe, both of whom were in the same class, and who fit the profile of high-level learner/low-level function user. Furthermore, they stood out in their class because their classmates were in general low-level learners and average function users. The two observed students, Miyuki and Keisuke2, were clearly much more comfortable speaking English and sharing ideas than their classmates. They often contributed a relatively large percentage of the utterances in discussions, were generally comfortable disagreeing with others’ opinions, and often displayed a sense of humor during activities. They were quick to laugh and, in illustration of how they differed from their classmates, were usually the only two to speak (albeit to each other and in Japanese) before and after the lesson.                                                           1 In this case, “higher-level” means students who exhibit an overall stronger communicative competence compared to their classmates. 2 Both names are aliases. ????????????? ??? ??????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion 150  My initial aim of the Teaching Journal was to observe whether or not, or in what ways, Miyuki and Keisuke’s lack of Function use was affecting their content in Discussions. However, I soon realized, helped by conversations with colleagues, that there was a clear distinction between Function use and Function Phrase use. In other words, a student could express the purpose of a Function (e.g. “School uniforms are not a good idea”) without marking it with a particular phrase that made it clear what the Function was (e.g. “In my opinion, school uniforms are not a good idea”). I noticed that Miyuki and Keisuke were in fact often expressing target Functions but not always marking them with Function Phrases. This led me to consider what the benefits were of having students use Function phrases, considering that they were still contributing relevant content to the discussions without them. I came to two conclusions. First, Function Phrases are the easiest way for students to understand, and practice, the Function itself. If a student is asked to use a Function Phrase appropriately, it provides a clear example and thus an explicit way for instructors to explain the Function. Second, the Function Phrases are interactional by nature, and are therefore just as, if not more, important for the listeners in the discussions than for the speaker. For example, the speaker may know that his or her particular utterance is intended as a paraphrase, but if this is not clear to the listeners, there is a strong potential for a breakdown in communication. With this in mind, I then shifted the focus of my Teaching Journal to observing how different types of Practice activities could foster better Function Phrase use in the Discussions immediately following them.  DISCUSSION One purpose of the Preparation activities in EDC lessons is to help students activate their knowledge of, and develop their opinions on, the lesson topics. They provide a low-pressure activity in which to generate content to use in the two extended Discussions, which the students perhaps perceive as being of “higher stakes” than other stages of the lesson. The Preparation activities are also chances to practice the target Function Phrases by applying them to the lesson topics, and therefore giving students an opportunity to see how they could be used in contexts broader than the more limited (in terms of content) Practice activities. Lessons 6, 7, 10, and 11 all introduce new Functions, and in each of these lessons with the observed class I tried different types of Practice activities for Discussion 1. As part of my observations, I kept records of what method I used for the Preparation activity, what topic was being discussed, which Function was being practiced, and how long the activity lasted (see Appendix 1). I also noted how well Miyuki and Keisuke used the target Function Phrases in the Preparation and in the subsequent Discussion.  Method 1: Function Patterns After students prepared for the Preparation activity individually by putting check marks in a table, I put them into pairs to discuss their ideas. However, I first gave each pair a Function script to follow:   A: OPINION?   B: OPINION   A: REASON?   B: REASON   A: PARAPHRASING?   B: Yes, that’s right! or Not really… + PARAPHRASING  ????????????? ??? ??????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Matthew Y. Schaefer  151  I modeled this with a student before they began and then allowed the pairs to discuss their ideas for about six minutes, taking turns being A and B. Most pairs completed the script about four times. Although Miyuki and Keisuke were not working together as a pair, I observed that both of them did not always follow the script, but were able to when I reminded them. They also frequently asked extra follow-up questions. In the following Discussion, neither Miyuki nor Keisuke used the target Function (Paraphrasing), although they did contribute many ideas. It is possible that, because this particular Function’s primary purpose is to negotiate meaning, both students felt that its use was not necessary for contributing content to the Discussion. However, it should be pointed out that, after further practice of this Function, they were able to use it in later lessons.  Method 2: Phrase Cards As before, the students first worked individually to begin thinking about the topic. I then gave one student in each pair a piece of paper with the question Function Phrases written on them:  Where did you hear that? How do you know about that?  Students discussed their ideas and whoever was holding the piece of paper had to use one of the questions at an appropriate time. They then gave the paper to their partner who similarly had to ask one of the questions before handing it back, and so on. Students continued this activity for about seven minutes, with most pairs exchanging the piece of paper about three times. Keisuke and his partner exchanged more times, mainly, it seemed, because they treated it as a game and enjoyed the challenge of finding opportunities to ask the questions. I had to prompt Miyuki to ask one of the questions when she had the paper as she and her partner seemed to have forgotten the structure of the activity, even though they were sharing ideas about the topic.  Keisuke used the Function Phrases often from early in the subsequent Discussion, which seemed to prompt Miyuki to also use them. However, their use was not always appropriate and therefore did not necessarily lead to more content. From my observation, this was probably because they were looking at the Function Phrases more as language forms that they were expected to use in the lesson, rather than Discussion Functions that could improve the depth of their interactions. This may be directly linked to the game-like nature of the Preparation activity. However, it should be pointed out that, again, both Keisuke and Miyuki were able to use the Function more appropriately in later lessons. It may be, therefore, that having them use it a lot at the early stages of its acquisition, even in somewhat inaccurate contexts, had long-term benefits. Dornyei (1995) points out that one of the acquisition stages of strategic conversational phrases is providing early opportunities for repeated use. As he puts it, “automatization will not always occur without specific focused practice” (p. 64). In addition, he lists ‘encouraging risk-taking’ as one of the procedures for this type of strategy training, which could be interpreted as allowing students to misuse a piece of target language if it moves them in the direction of acquisition.  Method 3: Teacher-Student Demonstrations This time, I gave students no explicit instructions on how to organize their interactions, other than to discuss their ideas and to remind them of the target Function (Different Viewpoints) by leaving the phrases written on the whiteboard. While the pairs were talking, which lasted about six minutes, I monitored and took notes on good examples of Function Phrase use and on missed opportunities of Function Phrase use. After the activity, in front of the whole class, I re-enacted the good examples with the students who had originally used them. I then re-enacted the missed ????????????? ??? ??????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion 152  opportunities, also with the relevant students, but this time prompted the use of the Function Phrases, either by gesturing towards the whiteboard or by asking a question Function Phrase and thereby eliciting an answer Function Phrase (e.g. “What about from older people’s point of view?”). Keisuke was one of the students who provided an example of good Function use.  In the Discussion, both Keisuke and Miyuki used the Function Phrases accurately and with appropriate frequency (about two or three times each within ten minutes). One possible reason that Keisuke was able to do this may be that he acquired the Function well from the Practice and Preparation activities and was therefore primed to use it in the Discussion. (It should be noted that his use of the Function in the Practice activity was applied to content different to his use of the Function in the Discussion.) I believe that Miyuki’s good use of the Function may be connected to Keisuke. Because they seemed to have good rapport with each other, it is possible that she would pay more attention to my feedback example using Keisuke’s utterance from the Practice activity. Also, because I always had them in the same groups for the Discussions – for the purposes of the Teaching Journal – she may have again been influenced by his use of the Function. On a general scale, this method also exhibits more ‘teacher confirmation’ (Arnold, 2013) than the others. Teacher confirmation includes, among other behaviours, teachers demonstrating that they are paying attention to what students are saying and validating their ideas (in this case, by sharing them with the rest of the class). According to Arnold (p.35), this encourages learners “to participate more actively in the learning tasks and thus smoothes the road to language learning.”  Method 4: Student-Led Feedback Students were given no particular instructions on how to conduct their sharing of ideas, but I did tell them that I would ask them to report some of the ideas that they heard afterwards and that they could take notes while they were speaking if they wanted to. I again left the target Function (Balancing Opinions) on the whiteboard. Students spoke for about eight minutes. None of the students took notes while they were speaking, but the four students I called on to report their ideas (including Keisuke and Miyuki) were able to while using the target Functions (e.g. “Shiina said that one disadvantage of Fumi paying a fine is that she will become poorer and steal again.”), although I occasionally had to prompt them by gesturing at the board.  Keisuke and Miyuki both used the target Function appropriately and extensively during the Discussion. By this point in the EDC course, they both seemed very aware of how they were expected to perform and would sometimes treat it as a game of who could use a Function Phrase first in a given situation. Their interaction with each other, as both students and friends, seemed to have a strong influence on their language output. As Stevick (1980) put it, “success depends less on materials, techniques, and linguistic analyses, and more on what goes on inside and between people in the classroom.”  CONCLUSION There are many factors that may influence a student’s use, or non-use, of a particular Function during a discussion. Among these are: the student’s particular emotional state in any given lesson (MacIntyre, 2002); the student’s previous experience with the Function (including in their L1); the nature of the Function itself and how easy it is to incorporate into different topics; and the influence of classmates’ use of the Function. In addition, simply by attending the EDC course every week, students are likely to become more aware of what is expected of their performance in the various activities and can therefore improve their ability to use the target language appropriately. However, it is also reasonable to assume that the Practice activity immediately preceding a Discussion may influence the students’ output. Through my informal ????????????? ??? ??????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Matthew Y. Schaefer  153  observation, lacking any detailed data, of two EDC students, it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions. Nevertheless, giving students semi-controlled practice of the target Function Phrases (as in Methods 1 and 2) may have acted more as an extension of the Practice activities than as preparation for a free discussion, in terms of what the students felt was the focus of the activity. This could be reflected in the Discussions, in the way that, although Keisuke and Miyuki’s Function Phrase use was frequent, it was not always appropriately applied to the content. One reason that Methods 3 and 4 seemed to work better for Keisuke and Miyuki, I believe, is because they combined feedback of Function use with feedback of content, and therefore provided more concrete examples of how the target phrases could be integrated into more authentic contexts. The simultaneous awareness-raising of both forms and meanings may be seen as a transition from the structured output of the more controlled Practice activities to the more open-ended, “spontaneous” output of Discussions (see Lee & VanPatten, 1995).  The informal research I conducted through this Teaching Journal perhaps raised more questions for me than it answered. In the future, I would like to analyze Practice activities and Discussions to see whether or not marked Functions (i.e. ones that include Function Phrases) that appear in the Practices are more likely to be repeated in the Discussions. I would also like to look at Discussions to see if there are any significant differences between responses to marked Functions and responses to unmarked Functions.  REFERENCES Arnold, J. (2013). Self issues and motivated behavior in language learning. In J. Arnold & T. Murphey (Eds.) Meaningful action. (p.29-44). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Doe, T., Hurling, S., Livingston, M., Moroi, T., & Takayama, I. (2013). What do you think? Interactive skills for effective discussion 2 Book III. Tokyo: EDC. Dornyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 55-85. Hurling, S. (2012). Introduction to EDC. In T. Doe, S. Hurling, M. Livingston, T. Moroi (Eds.), New directions in teaching and learning English discussion. Tokyo: EDC. Lee, J. & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill. MacIntyre, P. D. (2002). Motivation, anxiety and emotion in second language acquisition. In P. Robinson (Ed.) Individual differences in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Stevick, E. (1980). Teaching languages: A way and ways Rowley, MA: Newbury House.  APPENDIX Table 1: Preparation Activities Data LESSON # METHOD TOPIC FUNCTION DURATION 6 Function Patterns Purpose of TV Paraphrasing 6 minutes 7 Phrase Cards Qualities to become famous Reporting Information 7 minutes 10 Teacher-Student Demonstrations Public manners Different Viewpoints 6 minutes ????????????? ??? ??????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion 154  11 Student-Led Feedback Ways to punish criminals Balancing Opinions 8 minutes ????????????? ??? ??????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Attempting to Increase Function Pharase Use in Communicatively Competent Students

https://rikkyo.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=16134&item_no=1&attribute_id=18&file_no=1

Attempting to Increase Function Pharase Use in Communicatively Competent Students

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

立教大学学術リポジトリ